u

Notes
of Syros

Appea

Repori

Bp. K.

Bp. E

Bp. R(

Profes

Memo

Reforr

Corres

Corres
(1) Old
the Artie

Eesoln

TheO
Rev. the

TheO
St. Paul'

Corres
lightenm
the Valic
the Inter
of the Se

The S
With Su

Anglo-i W
minster ii

enlisted. There must be no silly talk aboi
teresting natives," &c. ; no excited running
fro, to more Missionary Meetings than th
inwardly digest, while theii' own servants, {
obvious claims of those at hand, are uncared
Our women at home, if they would be '
helpers to the truth, "must be "keepers at ]
they must learn somethmg of self-mastery a]
sacrifice ; that so their witness may have pow
those who see that their cliarity extends to tl
of the earth may also see that it " begins at h

After all, the work is one, tlu'oughout
world. For there is but one Lord ; and '* He
Great King over all the earth." "It is G-od
ruleth in Jacob," — here, in the Church at h
" and unto the ends of the earth." Even the
King must have His daughters, honourable w

If even the annals of Heathendom are oftei
bright by the story of woman's devotion, and e
Spartan mother could add fortitude to her lov
it not be reserved for Christian women to sho-

" A fairer strength thai
Strength linked with weakness, steeped in tears and
And tenderness of trembhng womanhood,
But true as hers, to Duty's perfect Law ?■'

Printing Office, 26, Ecdeston Street East, Piixdico, S.V

■i£i2iXa£i-:Z^-

State

Russia, Constantinople, in 1875. 2d.
Summary Report of the Second Conference at Bonn. Id.

i^tiitngtons; : 3, Waterloo ^lact, )lontlott.

position of t|)e CeUBrantT^

/<575-

A./-

SPEECH

OF

REV. ROBERT GREGORY, M.A.,

CAXOX OF ST. PAUL'S, AND PROCTOR IN CONVOCATION FOR THE
CHAPTER OF ST. PAUL'S,

DEUVERED IN

-THE LOWER HOUSE OF CONVOCATION OF THE
PROVINCE OF CJNTERBURT,

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1875,

IX MOVING THE

FIPST EESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE OX RUBRICS.'

^nblisljcb bg SfOitest.

POSITIOK OF THE CELEBRANT.

Mr. Prolocutor, — I never rose to address this Convoca-
tion with a deeper sense of responsibility than at this moment.
I feel that we have arrived at a crisis of the greatest possible
magnitude, affecting the whole future of the Church of
England, and the question I have to raise is one of the
gravest moment to ourselves and our children. I must
consequently be allowed to commend it to the serious and
thoughtful consideration of my Reverend brethren ; and
in doing so it will be well for us to bear well in mind
the circumstances under which the quesdon at issue is
brought before us.

When the Public Worship Act of last year became law-
it was thought desirable that its acdon should be suspended
for twelve months, in order that the Church, by its repre-
sentatives in Convocation, might come to decisions that
would help to take off the sharp edge of the new law,
which might otherwise spread ruin and devastation in a
vast number of parishes all over the kingdom. It was
to meet difficulties presumably about to be raised by the
action of the new Court that we were to consider what
would be the posidon of affairs in the future. There are
two questions in dispute which have especially excited
interest and anxiety ; the one referring to the Posidon,
and the other to the garb, of the Celebrant in the Adminis-
tration of the Holy Communion, and to these points the
Committee, in whose name it is my privilege to speak, was
directed by this House to give its earliest attention. It was
felt that it would be of great advantage and convenience
to zealous and earnest members of the Church of England
if these questions could be really settled by the Convoca-
tions of this country, whichever way the decision went.
I know that the Clergy in their several Rural-deaneries

or Dioceses have met and expressed by considerable
majorities that, in their opinion, no change should be made
in the existing law. Before accepting that conclusion as
decisive, as really representing their views and judgment
on the subject, we must consider the circumstances under
which this opinion was given. It is well known that at
present the Clergy are much divided in their opinions
and wishes upon the two points of which I am speak-
ing ; a considerable number hold to the one view,
and a considerable number to the other. When,
therefore, the Clergy met under these circumstances, each
party feared lest it should be placed in a minority, lest the
middle party should vote with its opponents, and that so
it should suffer injury. To avoid this danger, and by a
species of silent compromise, it was agreed to ask for no
change in order to arrive at an apparent unanimity; and
so to escape from a possible decision which would have
been injurious to one or other of the great parties. When
we saw extreme High Churchmen at ruridecanal meetings
proposing to ask Convocation not to make any change, and
extreme Low Churchmen seconding such a proposal, and
men diametrically opposed to each other in what they
wished the law of the Church to be about these disputed
matters voting together, it is impossible not to conclude
that each party was actuated by the fear of which I have
just spoken ; or, if not that, then that it hoped and expected
to find the judgment of the new Court would be in its own
favour, and in the confidence that the side it espoused
would thus gain the victory it was content to trust the
future. The voice of the Clergy, therefore, in their
Rural-deaneries really then only amounts to this — that
the two parties in the Church were more afraid of
suffering loss, than hopeful of gaining what they
desired, by pushing to a division consent to, or dissent
from, the real conclusions at which they would have
wished to arrive. It shows that opinion was felt to be so
evenly divided that neither side dare act as though it had
an assured majority. At present this lands us in no difficulty ;
but what has it done towards helping to tide us over those

troubles which must arise in the future ? For what is our
position now ? Is it more defined or is it settled on a
surer basis than it was a year ago ? There is, I am aware,
far less excitement ; but will it continue to be so when we
have a decision one way or the other ? Should we then
find more readiness to submit to the Court than there was
some time ago — more willingness to concede to our
brethren who were cast in the suit, whichever side it may
be, that liberty which the Court had refused, than we
should have seen some time ago ? Practically, I fear we
should not. I think we are in the same position now that
we were then, and, that being the case, we have to con-
sider what will be the state of things when the decision
of the Court has been given ; and surely as a matter of
common prudence we ought now to determine what we
shall then wish we had decided. On this account it is,
I think, that there never was a time when it was more
important for Convocation to say what in its opinion the
good of the Church demands that the law should be.

We do not sit here as a judicial assembly to say what
the law is, but as a legislative assembly we are now
invited to say what in our opinion the rule of the
Church in these two important matters ought to be.
It is because we have to act in this capacity that it
is so desirable for us to state clearly what we think the
law should be, to state it now when there is a lull and
men's minds are, comparatively speaking, tranquil, rather
than to wait for a time when a judgment has been given,
when a thrill is running through the Church, when men's
minds are heated and excited, and naturally little disposed
to moderation ; a time when it is to be feared the victors
might be crying for extermination, and the vanquished
would have no defence but an appeal for mercy. In
my opinion, then, we are bound at this time to speak
with no uncertain voice ; for we may now see more
clearly what we ought to do than we can hope to do
in an hour of excitement. We are now in this happy
condition, that whatever we propose will not take imme-
diate effect ; whilst as inviting to moderation each side has

now before its eyes the possibility of being vanquished in the
strife, which after the decision of the Final Court one side
no longer will have. Whatever we do, we must be content
to await the decision of the Court, for legislation this year is
obviously out of the question, and before there can be
legislation next year either the existing Court will have
spoken, or the new Court will have uttered its interpreta-
tion of the existing law. If the Court decides in the
manner we recommend, then obviously there need be
no legislation at all. What we have, therefore, to
consider is not what will happen if the decision should
be in accordance with our desire for liberty, if that
should prove to be our desire, as I trust it will,
but what will happen if one or other of the existing
positions should be pronounced by the Court to be
the only legal one. We have to decide upon the best
way of regulating this practically important question for
the future. For my own part, I say unhesitatingly that
whatever the Synods of the Church of England may
ordain I shall obey ex animo. I would accept the ruling
of the Church as my guide whatever that ruling may be,
and however much it may be opposed to my own prefer-
ences and practice : I feel that I should be an unworthy
son if I declined or refused to do so. I say this emphati-
cally, and I say it especially, because I feel that the decision
of this Synod would have a moral weight which would
render compliance with it a moral duty ; and surely this
is a grave and important reason why we should come to a
conclusion now, and not accept any mere motion for delay
or postponement. This is a reason for our rejecting any
procrastinating amendment which may be placed before us,
the object of which is not to propose what its supporters
wish, but to avoid the carrying of a resolution which
they dislike. There are, I believe, thousands who feel as
I do — thousands who would accept the decision of the
Church's Convocations, but who would not look with
equal deference upon any decision of a Court founded on
a narrow construction of certain words in a rubric, and in
the giving of which five Judges might be on one side

^ \

- UlUC .

and four on the other ; and a decision when it might be
that by an accident Judge A, who would have decided one
way, was hindered from attending the Court by sickness
or accident, and Judge B, who did decide in the
opposite way, was substituted for him. Is it to be won-
dered at that under such circumstances the decision of a
Court of law fails to carry with it that moral weight which
would attach to the deliberate, w^ell-weighed conclusions
of the Synods of the Church ? Is it not obvious that
under such circumstances the Synods of the Church are
bound to set forth a rule which will carry with it a moral
force binding upon conscience ?

I ought to say that I do not myself see any difficulty in
interpreting the rubric in dispute : its words seem to me
plain and clear, and capable of only one interpretation, and
that the one which I place upon them ; but I do know that
many of my brethren understand it quite differently, and it
seems to them capable only of bearing a contrary inter-
pretation to that which I attach to it ; to them I would
give the same credit for really desiring to know
what the Church directs by her law that I assert for
myself, to them I would attribute the same honest
desire to obey which I claim for myself. There is,
therefore, a clear case of understanding the same words in
opposite ways. In such a case, then, of doubt and diffi-
culty, surely it is important that this Synod should state
clearly and explicitly what is the wisest course to be
pursued, what meaning it thinks ought to be attached to
the words in dispute. Shall we say that one rule, and
one only, should be allowed ? Shall we say that we will
restrict liberties which have existed in this Church of
England ever since the time of the Reformation ? or shall
we permit this long-exercised liberty to continue, and trust
to the growth of sound opinion to get rid of the differ-
ences of view which now exist ? Much depends upon the
answer we give to this question. I think I shall be able to
prove the fact that such liberty has existed, and to show
that it has existed unquestioned, in the Church of England
since the Reformation.

8

But before I trouble the House with the evidence by
which I hope to prove this, I will set before it a descrip-
tion of the state of feeling which now exists, and which it
is important for us to bear in mind. For that purpose I
will read an extract from a speech made by Lord Cairns in
the House of Lords on the 4th of June last year, as I
would rather trust his very able report on the position
of affairs than any which I could myself set before you.
His Lordship said : —

" I think there are in the Church of England a great number of
persons, a large number of clergymen, who have no sympathy what-
ever with Ritualists — I use a familiar expression — or Ritualism, who
have no sympathy with those extravagances and those departures
from the law that have been referred to in this House, and who yet
feel themselves much distressed and disquieted by the present law
on the subject of the position of the minister during the time of
consecration. Upon that subject there have been two decisions
more or less final by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I do not desire to say one word on the law of the question, but
everyone knows how exceedingly difficult it is for any person — for
any layman, perhaps for any lawyer — to be satisfied that those two
decisions are reconcilable with each other. In one of those cases no
defence was made, and only one side was heard. Those decisions
cannot be regarded as final. If we look at the past history of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, we shall be able to find
that certainly there is one case of great importance in which a
decision arrived at by the Judicial Committee was afterwards altered
by the same tribunal. Suppose it should hereafter be decided by the
final tribunal of the country that the proper position for the minister
at the time of consecration is to stand in front of the people looking
towards the east. Remember, that if it should be so decided that
decision will be compulsory upon every clergyman of the Church
of England. Now, if that should turn out to be the law of
the Church, it is a law which would press heavily upon the
consciences of a great many clergymen of the Church of Eng-
land. But suppose the tribunal should decide that the proper
position for the clergyman is to stand looking towards the south.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of clergymen whose habit it
has been all their lives, before Ritualism was thought of, certainly
before it was developed, to stand in the other position. I ask your
lordships to consider how a final declaration of the law to the effect
that I have mentioned would bear upon the consciences of these
clergymen. But suppose the court of ultimate appeal should say
the rubrics are so obscure that we will leave the question of the
position of the minister during the time of consecration in dubio :

then, after a long, difficult, and acrimonious litigation, you come to
the very conclusion at which the proposal of the right rev, prelate
asks your lordships to arrive."

That was the opinion of Lord Cairns, and I will now pro-
ceed to supplement it by showing that the evidence for the
use of the two positions is far more nearly equal than people
are apt to suppose, and that as a matter of fact there has
been since the time of the Reformation this diversity of
practice for the continuance of which we now contend.
I may say, in passing, that the liberty I claim I wish to
give to those who differ from me. I desire to assert this
most emphatically. 1 have no wish to give liberty on the
one side and to narrow it on the other. My argument,
therefore, wherever it can refer to both uses, is as appli-
cable for liberty to the one side as to the other ; but as one
is not challenged, it is not necessary for me to say anything
on that side of the question.

Let us, then, look at the historical evidence. Of course,
we all know that at the present moment both uses are
widely prevalent. Of the Churches in London, we are
told by competent authority that in one-sixth the priest
celebrates eastward ; and possibly, if we counted up the
number of communicants, we should find that in the
Churches where the priest celebrated eastw^ard the num-
bers at all events equalled those in any like number
of Churches where the minister celebrates in a different
position. And what is true of London, where we can
ascertain with a considerable approach to accuracy the
number of Churches in which the priest celebrates looking
eastward, I have no reason to believe is less true of the
country taken as a whole. Li some Dioceses the proportion
would probably be much lower than this, whilst in others
I have reason to believe that it would be larger.

I will now take as my starting-point, from which to
commence proving the continuous existence up to the
Reformation of the use of the eastward position, the
publication of the "Tracts for the Times" in 1832. As
my first example, I would state that the vicar under whom
it was my great privilege to commence my ministry was

10

the Rev. Thos. Keble, vicar of Bisley. He was appointed
to that vicarage in 1 82 7, and he had been accustomed to
celebrate eastward, with greater or less regularity, from
the time of his Ordination, at which dme he had seen
others, and amongst them the Bishop who ordained
him, adopt this rule, and he followed their example.
My dear friend and colleague Canon Liddon tells me
that his great-uncle, who died in 1 8 1 3 , at the age of fifty-
six, and who had charge for many years of two parishes
in Norfolk, never consecrated in any other position. I
hold in my hand a letter stating that the Rev. W. Mercer,
vicar of Northallerton, ever since he was ordained priest
in 1821 had observed the eastward posidon at the time of
consecration, and also that when he was a boy at Win-
chester it was always the use of the College Chapel. I
have also a letter from Mr. Rodwell, who was in treaty
with the Rev. Hugh James Rose about a curacy at Hadleigh,
and one condition upon which that eminent man told this
candidate for his curacy he should expect conformity was,
that he should use the position which he (Mr. Rose)
always did during the celebration of Holy Communion,
and that was, that he should in consecrating stand facing
eastward. The Rev. Thos. Symonds, vicar of Eynsham
and of Stanton Harcourt, in Oxfordshire, died in 1845,
after serving those parishes as curate and vicar for fifty
years. Shortly before his death he said to a young friend,
who had remarked upon his celebrating in front of the
Altar, " This has been my unvarying custom all my life.
I consider that I am obeying the rubric. I suppose many
others of the clergy follow the same custom." I would call
attention to the statements on this subject in the very
valuable pamphlet of my friend the Rev. Morton Shaw,
where amongst other instances he mentions that of Dr.
Hodson, Principal of Brazenose College, Oxford (1809),
and Regius Professor of Divinity (1820), who always
celebrated in front.* I have received a great number of
letters containing similar evidence, with which I dare not

* "The Position of the Celebrant at the Holy Communion"
(2nd Edition, p. 155).

II

trouble the House lest I should weary its patience ; but I
will venture to read one very remarkable letter from the
Rev. W. Burkitt, vicar of Leeds, in Kent, a Clergyman
now far advanced in years. He says : —

" On Easter Day, 1814, Dr. Law, then Bishop of Chester, held,
as he was wont to do, his Ordination in the parish church of St.
James', Piccadilly, at an early hour in the morning. There was
present with me in the gallery of that church one who, having been
educated at Aberdeen a Presbyterian, had lived much on the Conti-
nent among Lutherans and pious Jansenists. He pointed out to me
the position of the Bishop when Consecrating, which was standing
' in the midst ' of the Altar, with his face eastward, and asked me
whether that was the usual position of the Celebrant in the Church
of England? I could not tell him, for I had never before seen a
Celebration. Since that day I have iDeen always alive to the ques-
tion, and have inquired and observed carefully, and my fi'iend
became a regular worshipper in the Church of England, and as long
as he lived ceased not to observe and inquire, very extensively, both
in London and in the provinces, the position assumed by the Cele-
brant in Consecration. We did find another practice than that of
the eastward position, but it was comparatively rare. And our
inquiries between 18 14 and 1820 confirmed the belief that the east-
ward was the prevailing position, and that it was very jealously
preserv^ed by many. At Oxford, betw^een 1818 and 1822, Bishop
Legge was in the habit of occasionally Confirming members of the
University ('no other persons being Confirmed at the same time),
and of Celebrating the Holy Communion in the same service. This
was at an early hour in the morning. He Consecrated using the
eastward position. During the same period in some College Chapels
the same position was observed. I frequently attended the service
at a small village church a few miles out of Oxford, where a dear
friend of the Evangelical school was incumbent. With him I was
on terms of the greatest intimacy and confidence, and of him I
sought an explanation of the different positions of the Celebrant.
He told me the grounds on which he and Evangelical friends gene-
rally preferred Consecrating at the North End, and that he believed
there was no objection to it, although, as he said, there could be no
doubt as to the intention of the rubric, and the general practice of
the Church at the time of the Savoy Conference and at the last
revision. Yet, he said, several very high Evangelicals adhered to the
w^ords of the rubric, and two at least of that saintly band who met
at 6 a.m. winter and summer to Celebrate the Holy Commiunion
insisted upon the eastward as the proper position of the Consecrating
Minister. One of those two was Romaine. But, he remarked, in
the course of the preceding twenty years frequency of Celebration
had increased chiefly amongst the Evangelical section ; that, in other

12

churches throughout the country, three or four times in a year was
the usual frequency ; and, therefore, the practice of the Evangelical
school might almost give the rule of Celebrating. About the years
1819 and 1820 the two positions were matters of interest to certain
Oxford men, and it was attempted to interest some leading men
about them; but there was found to be but one opinion, and all of
those by whom it was mooted were so certain that ' standing before
the Table .... and saying ' could be taken in no other way
than as in the Mackonochie judgment, and therefore no discussion
could arise on that point. Amongst those to whom it was men-
tioned were Heber (who as a select preacher was often in Oxford
at that time), Tyler, Card well, and Ellison. To Dr. Routh the
Puritan objection at the Savoy Conference was mentioned (the
priest ' turning his back to the people '). ' Nonsense,' said he ; 'if
the people's faces are all turned the same way, those in front must
stand with their backs to those behind them. Our honoured Lord
and Chancellor, when he read our address to the King the other
day, must have turned his back to most of the heads of houses and
the deputation.' In later times there must be many who remember
that Bishop Maltby (who was never suspected of Sacerdotalism)
began the Communion Service standing at the north-west angle
of the Altar, and Consecrated ' in the midst,' with his face to the
east. This I had observed in the diocese of Chichester ; and, in
1 84 1, being on a visit to the then incumbent of Bishop Auckland, I
mentioned the circumstance, and he said that the eastward position
was, he thought, the usual one. Between 1841 and 1843 I assisted
many clergymen in different parts of the country, and observed —
what I could not have seen but at the Altar — that, with few excep-
tions, the eastward position was adhered to ; and amongst those
who used it, I might mention two eminent Evangelical men — ■
one, the excellent late Rector of All Saints', Hastings, In this case,
as in all unrestored churches, the high pews effectually prevented
devout communicants from knowing where and how the Con-
secrating priest stood. A venerated friend, on reading the foregoing
part of this letter, seemed to take umbrage at what I have said of
the influence which the Evangelical revival may have had on the
orthodox practice, which had certainly prevailed previously — that
that revival had found only three or four Celebrations in a year,
even in large parishes, and that it stirred up many hundreds to
Celebrate at least monthly ; and that it was not unlikely that Evan-
gelical men scattered up and down the land, and most of them
preferring to Consecrate at the North End, led others to do so, who
otherwise would have followed the orthodox practice. But this is
the more probable when it is remembered that Newman and others,
who afterwards became leaders in the subsequent Catholic revival,
found, for some years, few with whom they could sympathize but
the Evangelical men ; and how, on the other hand, many high and
dry were awakened to spiritual religion, so as partially to combine

^3

even with Calvinists ; and how, again, when once the idea of Sacer-
dotalism was in any degree associated with the orthodox eastward
position, that idea, as we now see, would run like wildfire,
and a preference would be given to what would seem the safer
practice."

I will not trouble the House with further details, except
as to one modern case — that of a man with whose name
we all used to be familiar, but which, unhappily, owing to
bodily infirmity, is less frequently before the Church than
it was formerly — that of the Rev. F. E. Paget, vicar of
Elford. Mr. Paget says that for the last forty years he
has always celebrated in his present parish eastward ; that
his predecessor for forty-two years previously, and his
predecessor also for forty-two years, did the same. That
covers 124 years, and virtually carries us back to 1 750.
Continuing my catena, and turning to a few years earlier,
we have in a book published in 17 1 7, on '' The Whole
Duty of Receiving Worthily the Blessed Sacrament," a
picture showing a place for the book in the centre of the
table, and therefore necessarily requiring the Priest to
stand " before the table." Then in Scandret's "Sacrifice
the Divine Service," published in 1707, we find the
following : —

"In fine, since I have been so bold, I will proceed a little further
yet, and recommend to my brethren, the inferior priests, the obser-
vation of the Rubric in that particular of standing before the Altar
when they offer up this tremendous oblation, the Eucharistical or
peace offering of the New Law, whereby they v^'ill be put in mind
not to perform the manual ceremonies carelessly or clandestinely, as
some too usually do. Not that I believe the place of standing at the
Altar to be more than a circumstance ; but, besides our obedience
to the Church, and the ancient practice thereof, we shall by this
peculiar posture specify and distinguish that great action of worship
in the Christian Temple, and recommend it, as so, to the notice and
obser\'ation of the Congregation " (p. 64).

In 1704, I have, in a frontispiece to a little " Book of
Prayers used by the late King WilHam IIL," a representa-
tion of John Moore, Bishop of Norwich, standing before
the Altar, but turning half round to address the King. I
have also the frontispiece of another book, dated 1 700,

called *' Divine Banquet of Sacramental Devotions," from
which it is clear that the Priest celebrated eastward. I
have also a photograph of a picture of the apse of St.
Paul's drawn in 1698, in which on the table are two
cushions with open books upon them, placed so that
one of the officiating priests must have stood at what is
called the dextrum cornu, and the other at the sinisirum
cornu, I have also a picture in Sparrow's " Rationale
of the Book of Common Prayer," published in 1672,
which seems to point to the officiating minister using
the Eastward position. We then come to the age of
Jeremy Taylor and Bishop Cosin. Of their practice I
need say nothing : their writings tell it too plainly. Laud
and Wren certainly celebrated facing eastward. When
tried for their lives they made excuses ; but the fact of
their celebrating eastward cannot be doubted. Ascending
a little higher up the stream of time we come to the early
days of Elizabeth. When Queen Mary succeeded her
brother she turned out 1, 800 ministers of the Church of
England, and filled their places with Clergymen who more
sympathised with her own views. When Elizabeth came
to the throne only 177 of the survivors of these 1,800
Clergymen thought it necessary to give up their benefices
— the remainder continued in the Church of England, and
conformed to the reformed Liturgy as reintroduced by
Queen Elizabeth. We know that at that period discipline
was lax : in the agitated state of the country it was
impossible to insist upon strict obedience to the rubrics.
We may, therefore, fairly assume that Clergymen cele-
brated in the manner to which they were accustomed,
and as to what that must have been in the reign of
Queen Mary there can be no doubt. We know that
with regard to surplices and vestments there was the
greatest carelessness. Two parties stood face to face —
the same two parties which still exist — and when discipline
was lax we may not unfairly assume that each party fol-
lowed the uses to which it was attached. The Puritans
began to gather strength, and sought to innovate by
destroying whatever they could of those rites and cere-

15

monial practices which connected the then existing Church
in England with the same Church previous to the Reforma-
tion ; the other side adhered pertinaciously to what they
had been accustomed, and were anxious to preserve in
its integrity the idea of the continuity of the English
Church. In the First Prayer Book of Edward VI.
it was ordered that the Priest should face eastward.
We may, therefore, assume that those who grew up
under the teaching of this book, and during the pre-
vious period, continued to practise the customs to which
they were habituated. Of course, after such a great lapse
of time, in cases of this description, it is difficult to prove
what was the general practice, as the records of what was
then done are necessarily few. Therefore, to find so
much evidence from the present time up to the Reforma-
tion as I have been able to place before the House
certainly establishes the fact that the liberty for which we
now contend has been enjoyed by this Church of England
ever since the Reformation.

I cannot, therefore, imagine how the seven remonstrants,
in the face of such facts as those to which I have called
the attention of the House, can venture to say, '* It is
contrary to the all but universal usage of the Church of
England during more than 200 years." Those who
sympathized with the Puritan view of this subject swept
away many old customs ; and when these customs are
restored, such restoration will appear to the next
generation to be new practices. I think, then, I have
shown that the use of the eastward position was, in
fact, a practice, I might say a widely prevalent practice,
of this Church of England previous to this century ; and
I object that it is unreasonable to enforce a custom brought
in by one generation to the exclusion of an alternative
custom which had been largely in use by a great body
of the Clergy ever since the Reformation. That would
be a great hardship.

But it is objected that the rubric, though possibly
admitting the eastward position, did so as a mere matter
of convenience, and only permitted it because it was used

16

without doctrinal significance. Opponents of the liberty
for which I am now contending say the whole question
is now changed because it is asserted to have such signi-
ficance, and that the doctrine which it is held to typify
is one not admissible within the communion of the Church
of England. Before examining this point there is one
argument against limiting this time-honoured liberty of
the Church of England on this ground to which I
must call your attention. The English Reformers — I
distinguish them from the foreign Reformers who so
much influenced the revision of our Prayer Book in
1552 — the old English Reformers ordered that *'the
priest should stand humbly afore the midst of the Altar,"
and, therefore, to say that that is a Romish position is
to cast a great slur and reproach upon the very men
to whom we are indebted for breaking away from
the superstitions of the Church of Rome. I am as
opposed as any man can be to bringing into our Church
anything Romish ; but, on the other hand, I am anxious
not to surrender one single Catholic practice which has
been so far retained in the Church of England. But there
is another authority on this subject to which I will now
appeal, and it is one that ought to have great weight with
some in this House, with those who are apt to quote its
conclusions as of irrefragable authority. I mean the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case to
which I refer is that of " Sheppard v. Bennett." The
doctrine challenged was that of the Eucharist being in
any sense a Sacrifice. In considering this point it is
necessary for us to remember that there are some
few persons so ignorant of theology, or so blinded by
partisan antipathies, as not to be able to understand how
the word Sacrifice can be used in the sense in which it is
employed by great ecclesiastical writers ; and they have
ventured to say that those who employ it do so with the
feeling that in the Holy Communion there is intended a
repetition of the One Awful Sacrifice on Calvary. I deeply
regret that such an unfounded charge should ever have
been made, for I well know how entirely the accusation

17

IS contradicted by facts, how absolutely unsupported it
is by the writings of those against whom it is levelled.
That the Church has not defined any particular doc-
trine of Sacrifice is certain, but that she holds a
doctrine of Sacrifice is equally certain. It is set before
us in the very earliest teaching which she places in our
hands. For in her Catechism she says that the Holy
Communion is for '*the continual remembrance of the
Sacrifice of the Death of Christ and of the benefits which
we receive thereby." What does she mean by the words ,
" continual remembrance " } Who is to be put in remem- ^jSli nju
brance .? Surely not those who are about to receive the /r^^ffuU
Blessed Sacrament.'' On the one hand, it cannot he *^t;^ io-^
imagined that at the time when the communicants are y^ 'jjj ^
assembled to *'shew the Lord's Death"*' they need to '■^5^*^''W
be put in remembrance that it actually happened ; and, on ^fjuu^Jj*^
the other, it cannot be supposed that to be present at thei''^^./Sr
Holy Communion necessarily puts us forcibly in mind ^4 ^^a «•
of the all-Atoning Death of our Blessed Lord, or at
all events not more so than would a picture or the
eloquent words of a preacher. The remembrance referred
to in the Catechism cannot be by man : what is meant
by the expression obviously is and must be a Memorial
presented before the Eternal Father to plead the merits
of the all-Atoning Sacrifice of His Incarnate Son on our
behalf. But let me turn to the judgment of the Privy
Council in the case of " Sheppard v. Bennett" on this
point. It first quotes a passage from Bishop Bull on the
subject of Sacrifice, and thus shows clearly that at all
events one view of the doctrine of Sacrifice is not only
permissible within the limits of the Church of England,
but that it is positively accepted and approved by her
Supreme Court of Judicature.f Bishop Bull says : —

" tn the Eucharist, then, Christ is Offered, not Hypostatically,
as the Trent fathers have determined, for so He was but once

* I Cor. xi. 26.

t The Argument by A. J. Stephens before the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, in the case of Sheppard -v. Bennett,
with their Lordships' Judgment, p. 298.
B

i8

Offered, but commemoratively only ; and this commemoration is
made to God the Father, and is not a bare remembering or putting
ourselves in mind of Him. For every Sacrifice is directed to God,
and the oblation therein made, whatsoever it be, hath Him for its
object, and not man. In the Holy Eucharist, therefore, we set
before God the bread and wine, ' as figures or images of the
precious Blood of Christ, shed for us, and of His precious Body '
(they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy), and plead to
God the Merit of His Son's Sacrifice once offered on the Cross for
us sinners, and in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for
the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessings on us " {BuWs
Works, Vol. H., p. 22).

The judgment then proceeds to say : * —

" The distinction between an act by which a satisfaction for sin is
made, and a devotional rite by which the satisfaction so made is
represented and pleaded before God, is clear, though it is liable to
be obscured, not only in the apprehension of the ignorant, but by
the tendency of theologians to exalt the importance of the rite till
the distinction itself well nigh disappears. To apply the word
sacrifice in the sense in which Bishop Bull has used it to the
ordinance of the Lord's Supper, though it may be liable to abuse
and misapprehension, does not appear to be a contravention of any
proposition legitimately deducible from the Thirty-ninth Article.
It is not clear to their lordships that the Respondent has so used the
word ' sacrifice ' as to contradict the language of the Articles."

We have, therefore, a distinct acceptance of the doctrine
of Sacrifice, so far as it is held by the great majority of
the Clergymen who use the Eastward Position, pronounced
by the Court of Final Appeal. With regard, then, to use
and to doctrine, there is no reason whatever for narrowing
the pracdce of the Church of England — no reason what-
ever for setting up a new rule — a rule before unknown in
the Church of England. Nay, I am wrong there — it was
once set up, but they who did it brought Archbishop
Laud and King Charles to the block, and destroyed, as
far as man could destroy, the Church of England. I have,
I think, given sufficient reason why this House should
recommend the preservation of that liberty with regard to
the Eastward Position which the Committee, in the resolu-
tion T am proposing, desires to have secured.

* Ibid. p. 299.

19

But there are other objections which I must consider.
The seven objectionists say, in their fourth ground for
protesting : —

*' Because it seems to us that two distinct practices so explicitly
defined and authorized necessarily imply the formal recognition of two
diverse doctrines ; an anomaly altogether different from the compre-
hension under one and the same rule of persons who, while differing
from one another in many respects, are content to remain under such
rule."

And they then add, as their fifth reason for objecting to
the report : —

" We would have agreed to proceed further than the Report does,
and to recommend a liberty which would have left the position
of the Minister at the Table entirely free, while at the same time
making it clear beyond doubt or question that the Church does not
attach any doctrinal significance whatever to this position."

That is, in order to secure uniformity, instead of two the
seven dissentients think it desirable to permit thirty-two
positions — one for every point of the compass. Further,
is this quite a fair argument in the mouth of those who see
a great danger of attaching doctrinal significance to a
ceremonial Rite ? Would not there be more danger of
attaching undue significance to it if there were only one
use ? To insist on absolute uniformity is Popery indeed !
Are not all who submit to Rome likely to attach exaggerated
importance to the one position such as that Church would
enforce from the very fact of one only use being ever
allowed ^ If you insist on absolute uniformity, never to be
disturbed by allowing option of any kind, in what position
shall we be then placed but that of having ruined one
party or the other against whichever the judgment may be
pronounced and enforced ?

But there is another point. If this absolute uniformity
of practice is so very important, how about the Gorham
judgment ? Did not that permit a diversity of faith of far
greater importance than any diversity of practice which the
liberty now contended for could originate ? Are you pre-
pared to say you will make only one new groove instead
of the old traditions and reasonable liberty of the Church

B 2

20

of England ? That is to say, are you prepared to insist
that every man must utter a Shibboleth only in your way ?
If you think that by doing this, with respect to the matters
brought before us in the report we are now considering,
peace and quietness will be secured, I venture to assure
you that you are much mistaken. The first yielding to
clamour for an abridgment of existing liberties in the
Church would speedily be followed by far more extended
demands — demands which perhaps have not as yet been
fully realised by some members of this House. I will
venture to show by an illustration how far some, before
the victory to which they look forward is won, are already
prepared to advance. The Rev. Arthur Wolfe, Rector of
Fornham All Saints', near Bury St. Edmund's, and late
Fellow and Tutor of Clare College, Cambridge, has pub-
lished a pamphlet, in which he lets us know what is
the cure he recommends for the present evils, and his idea
is substantially endorsed by a newspaper which is supposed
to be the organ of the party which is assailing that liberty
for which we are now contending — I mean the Record.
Mr. Wolfe says : * —

"The removal of the ' Prayer of Consecration ' altogether would
cut at the roots of such superstitious notions far better than any
argument, especially if at the same time the Rubric were removed
which requires the people to receive kneeling. If Evangelical
ministers in addition would preach more frequently the Real Absence,
pointing out that we show forth Christ's death till He come, so that
as soon as ever He is again bodily present the Sacrament is at an
end, — we should be less likely to have such notions among us about
a ' Real Presence ' as we have at present."

He is a reformer of the advanced type — when he begins
he would make an end, for he adds : f —

" If, on getting removed from our Communion Office the
' prayer of consecration ' we could also get removed the corres-
ponding prayer in the Baptismal Office, in which the priest prays
God to ' sanctify ' the water, we should have a better chance of
being free from much of the superstition connected with the other
Sacrament of Christ's institution."

* " A few Words about the Eastward Position of the Officiating
Minister," p. 4.
t Ibid. p. 5.

21

I would ask this House if it is prepared to take the first
step in narrowing the liberty of the Church of England in
the way proposed, with the ultimate design of reaching the
goal set before them by Mr. Wolfe ?

Then some objecters against the liberty for which I
plead say that in such an unimportant matter all ought
to be made to conform. But the previous objection is,
that it is so important. It is clear that both these con-
tradictory objections cannot stand. They are mutually
destructive. But, if it is so important, who has made it so ?
If the present interest in it is a factitious interest, when
that ceases, as cease it must if it be so, the interest in it
will die, and it will cease to be regarded as of importance
in the Church of England. Accidental party feeling may
magnify unimportant questions, and invest them with a
dignity to which they have no claim ; but it is certain that
such cases may safely be left to time, which will manifest
their due proportions, and that their only chance of
becoming permanently matters of interest is by stepping
out of our way, and interfering with them bv seeking to
put them down by persecution or other violent means.
But I do not see how this objection of unduly magnifying
the importance of this question can be urged by those
who have been attaching such marvellous power to the
Eastward Position as symboHzing doctrine. Do remember
that that importance has largely arisen from the arguments
of our opponents. We have said little or nothing about
the connection between the position and doctrine, except
when we have been forced to speak ; the public hear
far more about the doctrinal argument from the mouths
of opponents than from those of supporters. Under
such circumstances, it having been made to symbolize
doctrine, to surrender the Eastward Position would, in
the eyes of many, be to surrender the doctrine of Sacrifice,
although approved by the Church.

Whilst considering this part of our subject it is well for
us to remember that faith is not one of those plants
which having been once placed in the minds of men are
certain always to grow and to flourish. It is with some

easily blighted and rendered unfruitful. It may be said, what
effect can so small a matter as this have on the minds of
men educated in the faith — is men's faith to be shaken
because they see the Priest's position altered from one side
of the Holy Table to another ? A remarkable illustration
of the effect of such a change has lately occurred. St.
Mary's, Soho, is in the centre of one of the poorest
neighbourhoods in London, it is close to the Seven Dials ;
owing to the persevering, self-denying exertions of the
late Incumbent, that Church was filled with the poor in a
remarkable manner. Mr. Chambers used the Eastward
Position and other ritual observances. He died, and a
Clergyman of different views came in his place. What was
the result ? The late churchwardens tell us in a paper
which has, I believe, been placed in the hands of every
member of this House : —

"The consequence of this has been that the members of the old
congregation of St. Mary's, which was, in the main, composed of
poor people from the slums comprising the district parish, have
ceased to attend the church, and go elsewhere, at much personal
inconvenience, for the religious privileges which they had learnt to
value, but of which you have deprived them. In proof of this we
may cite the numbers in St. Mary's Church last Sunday (Easter
Day). Not counting official persons and school children, there were
exactly fourteen people present at the beginning of the eleven o'clock
service. In former years, as all those who have frequented St. Mary's
Church know well, the building has on Easter Day been so densely
crowded at this service that many late comers have been unable to
obtain admission, not to say standing room."

We are told that they have left the Church where they had
been trained to worship and gone to others. I fear that
our knowledge of mankind must lead us all to fear that
some have been dropped by the way, that some who were
acquiring a loving interest in spiritual things have lost that
interest, and have ceased to attend Church altogether -, that
the uprooting of that to which they were becoming attached
at St. Mary's has been followed by what will prove the
uprooting of faith from their hearts. Do remember that
there are a considerable number of persons who are led to
look up into heaven for the truths they hold, and who
think but little of the media through which they see those

23

truths, so long as all proceeds in the manner to which they
have been accustomed ; so long as they trust those who
instruct them, their faith remains firm and unshaken. But
when their teachers are discredited, their instructions over-
turned, everything questioned which they had assumed to
be good and lawful, their faith is apt to be shaken; it is the
heavens reflected in the sea on which they then appear to
look, and everything will seem turned topsy-turvy, faith \vill
be lost, and those who had grasped the truth will be found to
have fallen back into the wretchedness of impure and sinful
living. I feel that, in the interests of the poor, this is a
matter of great importance.

But it may be said, why should the position of the Cele-
brant be important when you can preach the doctrine ?
True, we can. The Bennett judgment has settled that.
We may preach every Sunday about the doctrine, and little
else, and what will be the effect ? We may say from the
pulpit that the proper position for the Celebrant is before
the Holy Table looking eastward, but the decisions of the
law courts hinder us from standing there. And then un-
educated or partially educated people will ask, "Did
Clergymen do this before ? " Yes, always, until a new
besom of reform sv/ept over the Church of England, when
we got rid of so much of the old Liturgy in order to
make her more like a Calvinistic sect. Would that
satisfy enquirers.^ Moreover I believe that if we so
preached the doctrine of Sacrifice whilst abandoning
the ritual by which it has been popularly held to be
expressed, we should be doing much to destroy that old
straightforward truthfulness which has long been a dis-
tinguishing characteristic of earnest religious Churchpeople;
and the result would be that irritation would be per-
petually fostered, a sense of wrong and injustice would be
ever working in men's minds, and be spreading its baneful
influence more and more widely. Great evils, then, will
undoubtedly arise if we are not to express by ritual
hitherto allowed unchallenged in our Churches what none
can interfere with our continuing to teach the people from
our pulpits. Surely, then, we have here another reason

24

why we ought not to sweep away this long-enjoyed
liberty.

It is quite clear that such reasons as those to which
I have referred are insufficient to account for this new
crusade against the liberty of the Church of England.
There is nothing in any or in all of them to account for
the virulence with which this raid upon our liberties is
conducted out of doors. I do not charge anyone in this
House with ulterior motives. I believe we all wish to
promote the prosperity of the Church of England by doing
what we think we have a right to do ; but there is an
extreme party outside that wishes to push out people
whose doctrine it does not like. We have heard that the
party aimed at is that of the extreme Ritualists. It seems
to me, if we judge people's intentions by their actions, that it
is not the Ritualists who are really aimed at ; but that their
name is used whilst it is hoped that others will be hit.
For it may be well for us to remember that that party may
be far less affected by the proposed restrictions than
moderate High Churchmen will be. Extreme men will
find other modes of teaching doctrine which more moderate
men could not adopt. Suppose you were to forbid the East-
ward Position, and Clergymen holding very high sacramental
opinions were to tell their congregations that it would make
practically little matter if the same doctrine was clearly
brought out in some other way, and that this could be
most effectually accomplished by all prostrating themselves
to the earth, so that there should be no doubt about its being
an act of adoration, during the consecration prayer, there is
no law in the Church to prevent it. You cannot interfere
with the liberty of lay people. To banish the Eastward
Position, and to have instead the general prostration of the
lay people, would be regarded, I imagine, as a gain by few
even of the most heated partisans. You may say, but we
could hinder a Clergyman from giving such advice in
Church, and so we need not fear that. I doubt whether
you could do so, but even supposing that you could
so far interfere as to forbid the giving such advice
from the pulpit, you could not hinder its being given

25

in the schoolroom. We are told by some of their own
organs that the extreme party will conform to the decree
of the Court whatever it may be, and remain in the Church,
but at the same time labour to their utmost for its disestab-
lishment. But moderate men, of whom I hope I am
one, cannot accept that course. Our honesty of purpose,
our sense of what is required from us as truth-loving
Englishmen, as well as our zeal for the Church we
love, hinder us from taking such a course. It therefore
follows that the party really hit at are the moderate High
Churchmen.

I should like to call the attention of the House to what the
country owes to High Churchmen. That party has been the
bone and sinew of the Church, without which, in my opinion,
she would have perished. In the Caroline period the great
men whose names are ever quoted as the great ornaments
of the Church universally belonged to that school : it was
they who endeavoured to stop the action of the Puritans
in the time of the first Charles, and who built up the
Church in the days of his son ; and it is by them that in
later times the Church has been greatly served, and in my
opinion practically saved. The Evangelical revival took
place a good many years earlier than the so-called Catholic
revival. It certainly began before the end of the last
century, and we may fairly say that it was in a position
to put forth its full force at the commencement of this
century. Let us try what it did for the Church of
England, then, in those years when it was in the ascen-
dent, when it represented the active religious energy in
the Church. The greatest institution it brought into being
was the Church Missionary Society, the benefits of which
have been felt all over the world. Its large income shows
that it must have been supported by a powerful and
wealthy section of the Church. It was founded in 1 799.
The Bible Society was founded a few years earlier. If we
take the first thirty-five years of the present century, and
compare them with the last thirty-five years, we have
therein a means of comparison between what has been
accomplished by the two great parties in the Church.

26

But remember that this comparison is not on quite equal
terms. The Evangelical party had reached its maturity in
180T, the year from which we start ; the activity of the
High Church party only commenced in September, 1833,
with the issue of the first number of *' Tracts for the
Times." In 1836, therefore, it had not gained its full
vigour. But however, notwithstanding this disadvantage,
let us make the comparison. Let us take as our first point
of comparison the number of new Churches consecrated.
These were as follows: — 1801 to 1810, 43-, 1811 to
1820, ()6', 1821 to 1830, 308; 1831 to 1840, 600 ;

I84I to 1850, 929; I85I to i860, 820 ; 1861 to 1870,

1,110. In other words, from 180I to 1835 there were
640 Churches consecrated, and from 1836 to 1 870 no
fewer than 3,257. But our comparison would be very
incomplete if we stopped here. The impetus to Church
building during the earlier period was given by a power
which was all but unknown during the second. For in
the earlier period, 1 80 1 to 1835, the motive power was
two Parliamentary grants — one of a million and the other
of about half a million ; and in the last thirty-five years
nothing has been derived from the public funds for Church
building. But it may be said that in the latter period the
population had largely increased ; that there was greater
need for new Churches ; that men were pushed on to make
efforts to supply spiritual destitution which was not to be
found during the earlier years of the century. That
argument, however, when fairly examined, really tells, in my
opinion, the other way. The tide of great manufacturing
and commercial activity set in towards the end of the last
century. Men began to cluster round new manufactories,
and to form large towns, long before 1836. Hamlets became
villages ; parishes which had largely consisted of waste
lands, or of land used for agricultural purposes, found them-
selves almost suddenly peopled with a multitude of inhabi-
tants, and there were no churches for them. Until the first
Parliamentary grant there was but one parish Church for
Lambeth, though it extended from the Thames to what
is now the Crystal Palace ; whilst for the large district

27

lying on the other side of the hill, between the Crystal
Palace and Lewisham, there was but one other Church.
And this is but a specimen of what was to be found in
many places. For it was during the later years of last
century and the earlier ones of this that the foundations of
our towns were laid ; they became populous then, they
have only become more populous since. There must,
therefore, have been far more need of new Churches
then than now, when although the mass of population
is so great, there is no one person who wishes to
do so who cannot go to Church. The Church in the
first thirty-five years, therefore, in the matter of Church
building, did very little ; whilst in the latter thirty-five
years she did a great deal. But it may be said, during the
period of which you are speaking the feeling of the country
was against private persons expending their money on
Church building. This is no argument. Churchmen and
Nonconformists are Englishmen alike, and if Churchmen
during those thirty-five years did but little to increase the
number of Churches, Nonconformists did very much to
add to the number of Dissenting chapels. "What zeal and
devotion accomplished on the one side might have been
effected on the other, and any legal difficulties which
existed might have been swept away by men resolved to
succeed. They were swept away so soon as Churchmen
roused themselves to be in earnest upon the subject.
But, whilst saying this, let it not be supposed that I
undervalue the efforts put forth during the later period
by the Evangelical section of the Church. I gladly recog-
nise the work they have done, and the self-sacrificing
liberality which many of them have exhibited in building
Churches, and in the performance of other good works.
What I claim is that the greater impetus of the latter
period came distinctly from the High Church party, and
that this began to be felt after the Oxford Tracts made
their appearance. I do not undervalue what the Evan-
gelical party has since accomplished, but it was not by
them that the new force was introduced which exhibited
itself in Church building.

28

Having seen what was wrought by the Church, let
us next examine what was done by Dissenters during those
periods. Listen to the figures : —

iSid* 1851.* i872.t
Independent ("churches")... 1,024 ••• 3,244 .-• 2,880

I ought to say, with respect to these figures, that the
number of Independent churches in 185 1 is taken from
the religious census tables of 1851 ; whilst that for 1872
is taken from a handbook of the body, which may possibly
not include some sections that are included in the other
census. Compare the growth between 18 12 and 185I,
when the Evangelical party was in the ascendant, and
between 1 85 1 and 1872, when the influence of the High
Church party had made itself felt. In the one case the body
was multiplied three times, whilst during the later period
a positive decrease is shown ; and, even if this should be
found to arise from incompleteness in the statistics, arising
from the cause just mentioned, it is certain that there is no
extensive growth to chronicle.
Let us next turn to the

17904 i85i.§ 1875.11
Baptists (congregations) 313 ... 2,789 ... 3,191

I am obliged to take as my basis of comparison
'' Churches," " Congregations," or " Members," not as
I would, but as I am able to find them in the earlier
authorities from which I quote, and these are chiefly the
*' religious census" returns of 1851, and books published
by the several denominations. Here, too, make a like
comparison of the power of the two systems in opposing

* Census, 1851. Religious Worship, p. 19.

t "Congregational Year-Book," 1873. It ought to be added
that there are 702 more Independent "churches" in Scotland, the
Channel Islands, and the Colonies; but as the Census report of
1 85 1 expressly says, "The present Census makes the number 3,244
(2,604 in England, and 640 in Wales)," it is obvious that these
ought to be excluded in making a comparison.

t "Baptist Annual Register," 1790.

§ Census, 1851. Religious Worship, p. 21

11 "Baptist Hand-Book" for 1875, p. 269.

29

the growth of this class of Dissenters. In the sixty-one
years included in the earlier period the Baptists added nearly
900 per cent, to their numbers ; in the later twenty-four years
not 1 5 per cent. At the beginning of the century prose-
lytes must have been largely gathered in from other
sections of the people. During the last quarter of a
century they can scarcely have retained in their fold all
that were descended from members of their communion.
Let us next turn to the most powerful of the Noncon-
forming communities — the different denominations of
Methodists. Here we have the following figures : —

1851.* i874.t

AVesleyans (sittings) 1,447,580 ... 1,664.975

18284 18414 18514 18714 18744
Wesleyans ) „

(members)) ^^5,194 328,792 302,207 347,090 351,645

The figures here are very curious and instructive. Between
1828 and 184I this body added 83,598 to the number of
its members, or at the rate of more than 6,/^oo a-year.
During the last three years there has been a growth of
only 5,455 members, or little more than 1,800 a-year, so
that it is clear many children of Wesleyan parents must
have deserted that body, as the increase is far from
representing what it would have been had all continued
with them who were born in their communion. And
yet, whilst the additions to the number of their members
have been so small, chapel building has advanced at a rate
which shows how much wealth and willingness to give it
must exist amongst them. I forbear to comment on the
figures during the intervening periods, because I beHeve
they were largely affected by a schism in the Connexion.
To the statistics of some of these bodies separated from
the original organization founded by John Wesley I next
draw your attention, but on them I need make no
comment.

* Census, 1851. Religious Worship, p. zg.
t The '• Wesleyan Methodist Connexional Record and Year-
Book," 1874, P« no.
J Minutes of Wesleyan Conference.

30

1853.* l874.t

New Connexion Methodists (chapels) 301 ... 416

ditto ditto (members) 21,384 ... ai,955

18204 18504 i874.§
Primitive Methodists (members)... 7,842 104,762 164,660

1860.II 1874.11

Wesleyan Reform Union (members) ... 12,516 ... 7,581

Thus it will be seen how rapidly Nonconformity spread
when there was no school in the Church but the Evangelical
to hinder its progress : how comparatively slowly it has since
increased. And when we remember that during the later
period there was to be expected a natural growth arising
from the children of members, whilst in the earlier one all
additions must have been drawn from the external world or
from members of other communions, most probably from the
Church, the contrast becomes still more striking. In
short, during the first thirty-five years the Evangelical
party were impotent to stop the spread of Dissent through-
out the country ; Nonconformity advanced with rapid
strides, and it was only when the Catholic party came to
the rescue that the Church of England was enabled to
resume its supremacy.

That this is being accomplished I imagine all candid
persons must admit. The Church has now a spiritual
power which she was not seen to possess some years since.
The Church is now a polidcal force in a very different
sense to what she was at a period which most of us can
remember. She has renewed her strength in a manner
which must surprise all of us who reflect upon the past
and compare it with the present. Remember, then, that
all this has been done under the wholesome liberty which
the Church has hitherto allowed to her children ; but now if
that liberty is to be contracted, depend upon it that the

* Census, 1851. Religious Worship, p. 31.
t "Methodist New Connexion Hand-Book," 1874.
X Census, 1851. Religious Worship, p. 32.
§ Primitive Methodist Minutes of Conference, 1874.
II Minutes of the Annual Delegate Meeting of the Wesleyan
Reform Union.

31

rapid advances made by the Church in these later days will
be stopped, and I fear a retrograde period will again be
witnessed. Supposing an interpretation to be put upon
this rubric which would limit the liberty hitherto enjoyed
in the Church of England, the result upon many of those
who have done good service in her cause would be disastrous.
It would chill their ardour and damp their energies. They
would feel that their services had been repaid with injuries,
their devotion with slights ; and that they were bidden to
cease to labour by the mother whom they loved so well.
The lesson which we heard this morning must recal to the
minds of those who heard them Dr. Newman's last public
words in the communion of the Church of England, in which
he touchingly describes what were then his feelings, and what
would certainly be those of the men of whom I have been
speaking if you deprive them of the liberty for which I
am now pleading. He referred to Orpah embracing her
mother and leaving her and Ruth clinging to her, and
then after some little interval he exclaimed : —

" O my mother, whence is this unto thee, that thou hast good
things poured upon thee and canst not keep them, and bearest
children, yet darest not own them ? Why hast thou not the skill to
use their services, nor the heart to rejoice in their love ? how is it
that whatever is generous in purpose, and tender or deep in devotion,
thy flower and thy promise, falls from thy bosom, and finds no
home within thine arms ? Who hath put this note upon thee, to
have ' a miscarrying womb and dry breasts,' to be strange to thine
own flesh, and thine eye cruel to thy little ones ? Thine own off-
spring, the fruit of thy womb, who love thee and would toil
for thee, thou dost gaze upon with fear, as though a portent,
or thou dost loath as an offence ; at best thou dost but endure, as
if they had no claim but on thy patience, self-possession, and
vigilance, to be rid of them as easily as thou mayest. Thou
makest them ' stand all the day idle ' as the very condition of
thy bearing with them; or thou biddest them begone where
they will be more welcome ; or thou sellest them for nought
to the stranger that passes by. And what wilt thou do in the end
thereof?"*

I would ask you to look a little further. What was the
result of the unhappy proceedings against that great man ?

* " Sermons on Subjects of the Day," pp. 461, 462.

What has been the effect of them upon the University of
Oxford ? What Oxford was before Dr. Newman was
driven out of the Church of England by a course of action
not unUke that to which many are eager to urge you
against the High Churchmen of the present day we may
learn from the following eloquent words of Mr. Shairp,
the accomplished Principal of St. Andrew's, and a Presby-
terian : —

"There was not a reading man at least at Oxford who was not
more or less indirectly influenced by it. Only the very idle
or the very frivolous were wholly proof against it. On all others it
impressed a sobriety of conduct and a seriousness not usually found
among large bodies of young men. It raised the tone of average
morality in Oxford to a level which, perhaps, it had never before
reached. You may call it over-wrought and too highly strung.
Perhaps it was. It is better, however, for young men to be so than
to be doubters or cynics."*

Dr. Newman was swept away by the action of the Church
of that day ; and what do we find now at Oxford ? ** Is
there a God .?" is a question now hotly disputed in that
University ; and I am afraid some of her more learned
sons would answer in the negative. It is, then, for you to
consider whether you will follow the example, and
remember it is more than possible that the result may
be the same.

But let us look this point more closely in the face ; let
us consider what would be the probable consequence of
insisting upon an absolute uniformity in the position of the
Celebrant at the Holy Table. If you should abridge this
liberty the effect would probably be twofold. It would
influence men in one of two ways. It would either make
High Churchmen feel that their labours are so despised and
their principles so disUked that the best thing they can do
is to hide their sorrow in retirement. They would not
enter a foreign Communion — that has providentially been
rendered impossible for them now ! But they would
feel that their occupation was gone ; that there was
no spirit left in them to make ventures for the spread

* " John Keble," by J. C. Shairp, p. 8.

33

of religion or the conversion of souls. Think of the
character and weight and influence of many of those
whom this controversy affects. They are not light,
young, heady men, possessed of no power or authority in
the Church ; but many of them are men who have spent
their lives in her service : men whose names are
known throughout the whole Anglican Communion ; men
of whose words and deeds you are proud ; men who have
to a great extent sacrificed all earthly prospects in order to
teach and to forward the religious interests of the Church
of England. If you so narrow the ancient liberties of this
Church of England as to forbid a ceremonial practice
because it symbolizes a doctrine which they hold and
which they have taught, and which the Final Court of
Appeal has pronounced to be in strict conformity with the
formularies of our Church, the men of whom I am speak-
ing will feel compelled to be silent. They will be unable
to say what they have previously said, to appear to deny
what they continue to believe to be true, to seem to
question the rightfulness of what they have previously
done, by adopting a use which they had previously argued
against. They could not bear to see the scandal and the
evil to the souls they have loved, and the poor amongst
whom they have incessantly laboured breaking away
from Christ, and settling again into the sinful habits from
which they now seem to be rescued. Even in retirement
their hearts would be grieved to see their work undone,
not by enemies, but by so-called friends. And while
many would endeavour to gain quiet and peace in private
life by giving up their positions of honour and use-
fulness, and in some, possibly in many, cases by leaving
their cures and their homes for poverty and privation,
what must be the future of the Church of England ?
How would it be affected by their action ? The great
party with which these men have always acted m.ust
go to pieces. It could not go on long without heart,
without spirit, with depressed feelings, and a sense of
having been ill and hardly used, when those who ought to
c

34

have esteemed them highly for the work's sake had cast
them out. By such a course of action the moderate High
Church party must be destroyed. This would be the
effect upon some, but a different course would have
greater attraction for others. The many who would
probably remain at work in the Church would become
extreme -, all young men whose sympathies were with
them would naturally take the same line. You would
have two extreme parties facing each other, with no
moderate party to unite them, or to make peace between
them possible. When such a state of things shall have
been reached, it needs no prophet to foretell the end. It
would make small matter which party was victorious, for
in no case could the existing status of the Church
continue. And it may be less certain than some may think
which party would be victors -, for enthusiasm generally
prevails, and there can be little doubt as to which side has
the largest amount of enthusiasm.

Surely, with the possibility of such consequences before
us, this House will never be a party to taking away that
liberty which we have had in the past. We are Christian
men battling for what we deem our rights : we ought,
therefore, to contend in a spirit of love. But it is not a
spirit of love which would cast out men with whom on
many points we agree. It is not a spirit of love when we
call in the secular arm to repress and expel, and refuse to
permit the continued existence of a liberty which has never
been denied hitherto to members of our Church. It is not
by persecution that we should seek to make our principles
prevail, but by practically proving the living force of what
we profess and believe by our devotion to the cause of the
Great Master. Do not let us waste our strength in
warring against and devouring one another ; but, instead
of this, let us all work for God — let us all see how we
can best serve His Church — let us not strive to turn each
other out of a work in which both are doing good — let
us not in our eagerness for a party triumph forget that
these disputes involve tremendous consequences to what-

35

ever side the decision of the Court may be adverse — and
let us by all means shrink from doing anything to narrow
our fair and ancient liberty.

Remember, too, \vhat would be the effect of the line ot
action which I deprecate on those outside. We are not a
nation in which faith is deeply rooted. It is continually
coming to the surface that there are large bodies ot
men with only half faith, and with whom are such persons
likely to sympathise should the catastrophe happen which
I am seeking to make you realize ? We have very recently
fiad two remarkable instances of the effect upon the people
of this country of what has seemed to them persecu-
tion. Dr. Kenealy has been returned as Member of
Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent, and why C Because it was
felt, rightly or otherwise I do not say, by the working
men that he had been wronged, and they elected him, as
they thought, as a protest in favour of justice and fair
dealing. Then look at the Shakers in the New Forest,
what an amount of sympathy they have had from persons
who did not in the least agree with them ; and the
only reason we can give for this is that it was felt they
were hardly and improperly treated. And if Dr. Kenealy
and the Shakers gained so large an amount of public sym-
pathy, will none be given by the people of England
to a large and exemplary body of the Clergy — men
who have been the leaders in every good work, earnest
and self-devoted, the friends of the poor and the distressed
— when such men are turned out of their livings, and
are forced by their consciences to give up their posi-
tions, and consign themselves to inactivity for the future ?
Will the people of England calmly and indifferently
look on when they see some of the most learned,
able, and eloquent of the Clergy deprived because they
will not submit to be stripped of a liberty which has
existed without question in the Church of England since
the Reformation ? Will they dispassionately consent to
the loss of those to whom they have looked up with
respect, if not with reverence, and for such a cause .'*

36

Will they look with calmness upon those whose lives
they admire being expelled from the parishes which
they have benefitted, and some of them, it may be,
compelled to take refuge in a workhouse ? The probable
influence upon the people of a course of persecution is
realized by some of those whom it will affect, and it would
be well if their would-be persecutors would also take the
subject to heart. One of the more advanced Ritualists, when
I recently spoke to him of the future, replied, '' I hope we
shall be well persecuted — we have thriven on it in the past
and we shall thrive upon it in the future ! " For what has
been the success of all persecuting efforts in the past ?
Have they stifled or increased that against which they were
levelled ? Is the cause against which they banded
together stronger or weaker than it was when they com-
menced their operations ? Are its supporters increasing or
diminishing in numbers and influence ? The answer is too
obvious and notorious for me to express it. And, there-
fore, I do not shrink from saying that the great promoter
of Ritualism in this country has been the Church Associa-
tion. The power of Ritualism in this country would not
be what it now is if it had not been for the Church
Association. Persecution where it cannot stamp out in
unpitying slaughter and blood ever spreads that which it
seeks to destroy. What we want now is peace. We
cannot return to the middle ages and root out by force that
which we do not like. And the sooner we recog-
nize this, and act upon the knowledge, the better for all of
us, and for the Church of which we are members. I am
asking for no new liberty, but only that that which we
have may not be narrowed. I ask that the liberty which
the Church has enjoyed from the Reformation may not
be limited or destroyed by the new Court -, what the
eventual result of such limitation would be it were easy
to say. I hope, therefore, no one will be so blinded
by party hatred as to hurry to a future which is obviously
full of perils, and sufferings, and sorrows. Look before
you leap. See what you arc aiming at. Realize the

37

eventual consequences of your actions. Think of some-
thing beyond the momentary joy of a triumph. I believe
that those who ask for the liberty for which we are now
contending are as earnest, as faithful, as loyal members
of the Church of England as you will find in her fold.
We are not foes in disguise ; we do not wish to injure or
destroy the Church of England as she is, but to build up
and to strengthen her. We have done this in the past ;
we beg to be allowed to continue to do it in the future.
And all that we ask to enable us to do this is, that the
Church will not consent to any abridgment of the liberty of
any section of her children. It is, I hope, quite under-
stood that there is no intention of altering any doctrine of the
Church. We have no wish to do that, and never have
had. For party purposes this has been asserted by opponents
out of doors, but it has never had the slightest basis of
fact on which to rest. I therefore cannot object to the
addition which the Dean of Winchester proposes to make.
The words are taken from one of our own schedules. We
readily assented to their insertion in them, and we are
equally willing for them to be transferred as a rider to the
resolution I propose. In accepting that declaration I only
express what I mean in my heart.

In conclusion, then, I would beg the House most
heartily, most sincerely, in this the day given to it, to
resolve what it will do in the possibly approaching
extremity. Let it not drift, but deliberately resolve, so far
as it can, what the course of the Church shall be. If the
question was that the Eastward Position should alone be
tolerated, I would not agree to it. I should feel it to be an
infringement of the liberty of others, and I should object
to it as strongly as I should to anything which trenched
upon my own liberty. You may now do generously and
magnanimously what you may afterwards have to do, if
you do it at all, with the air of a patron to a suppliant.
Neither side ought to desire to see its brethren humbled.
The Evangelical party would feel it to be intolerable to be
compelled tocelebrate in a position to which its members were

38

not accustomed. I feel the same. AH, then, that I ask the
House is, that both sides may continue as heretofore to enjoy
the same liberty ; that so the Church may be in the future
as in the past the free Church of the free people of England,
which, while she does not infringe upon the long-enjoyed
liberty of her sons, guards at the same time with jealousy
what is primitive and true in her teaching. I conclude by
moving —

"That this House concurs in the recommendation that diversity
of Usage as it regards the position of the Celebrant, in the Adminis-
tration of the Holy Communion, be not interfered with."

Printed by the Church Printing Company, 13, Burleigh-street, Strand.

<I^W

0

«sr -m